Trade agreements are basically never treated as treaties, but are, after negotiated, submitted to Congress for passage as regular laws -- as TPP has been -- so it will take a simple majority in each house of Congress, followed by the signature of the President (or, 2/3 of each house to override a veto if one occurs.)
FWIW in June of last year, Obama allied with Senate Republicans, beating his own party, to get TPP fast tracked, meaning that the vote will be all or nothing, up or down, and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote.
The vote was 60-38.
Around that time, Clinton did refer to the secretly-written TPP as the "gold standard" in trade negotiations, but possibly due to pressure from Sanders and the rest of the party, has backed down, saying it was flawed and she doesn't support it.
Trump has also gone after the TPP numerous times, basically shoving a long-standing Republican establishment plank in their faces.
So weirdly both candidates oppose the TPP. I'm wondering if this is going to be saved for after the election, then jammed through.
> FWIW in June of last year, Obama allied with Senate Republicans, beating his own party, to get TPP fast tracked, meaning that the vote will be all or nothing, up or down,
This is true. A supermajority in Congress chose to preemptively waive its filibuster, as it has routinely in such situations since the 1970s. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to set its own rules. Many believe the filibuster shouldn't exist.
> and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote.
I don't understand how people are still making this argument.
The text has available for seven months at this point and no vote is in sight. There's been plenty of time for both NGOs and individuals to review. The treaty is fairly lengthy (it did take seven years to negotiate after all), but it's certainly readable.
If you're so concerned about not knowing the text, why don't you read it?
